I hope they are successful, but I think the work Robert Bussard's work sounds more promising. The reason Fusion hasn't work to produce net energy is inherent to the tokamak design. You spend too much energy charging up the magnets to keep the plasma from colliding into the wall. Which is why more material is constantly added to the mix. Bussard currently holds the record for most fused particles/second (I think that's the metric) beating Farnsworth's record set in the 60s. Neither of them used Tokamaks to set their respective records.
He has made significantly more progress towards the goal of net energy production from Fusion over 40 years and billions spent on Tokamak research. I think his ideas have lots of promise, but oddly enough society hasn't trained people in this type of science in decades.
Problem is Bussard passed away not long ago so progress on Polywell is slow since there are very few people out there with the technical know how to pick up where he left off. But, still he has left quite a lot of documents and details about what he has done. I hope research continues.
"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."
So, if you live in the UK and directly (through license fee) or indirectly (through taxes) fund the BBC then you don't get access to the content they give away to the rest of the world for free? Okaaaaaay
that's pretty ridiculous; had no idea access to BBC Future is blocked in the UK!?
and, ok, so it's a part of BBC Worldwide which is run as a commercial property to fund standard BBC programming, but does anyone have any insights as to why allowing access to such content in the UK would prevent or hinder this goal in any way?
Reminds me of a really old short story about a planet that built a black-hole drive. The story leads right up to the point where they hit the power button. And then it breaks to an "astronomical observer XY-1134" and his report on "yet another soloar system destroyed by attempts to travel faster then light".
I'm paraphrasing but does anyone wonder what happens if the fusion leaks out of the container and lights the planet on fire?
It makes me laugh that everyone is so focused on all sorts of dooms day scenarios and the reality is most likely someone will drop a vial of something horrible accidentally in a lab somewhere and half the human population of earth will be wiped out in 30 days.
Or most we'll just keep worrying about all this stuff and most of us will be dead, gone and dust before anything really interesting happens.
I'm absolutely no expert at all in this area, but isn't fusion just happening because of extreme high pressure (caused by gravity in the sun)? In that case the moment it leaks out it simply means the pressure to keep fusion reactions going on is gone. Which is likely the whole difficulty of getting fusion running at all - keeping the pressure up high enough.
Although I guess it would cause some big explosion.
Self sustaining fusion is hard, which directly relates to why you can't 'ignite' the atmosphere. The same concerns where raised when people started building A-Bomb's but even a 50MT bomb results in minuscule amounts of atmospheric fusion.
As far as wiping out people goes, it's a lot harder than you might think. I have seen estimates where a 'full scale' nuclear exchange between US and Russia would have done far less damage than most people assumed. It's hard to comprehend just how large the US is, or the fact that people have already detonated thousands of bombs which did little to increase the level of background radiation. Granted most of them where sub 10MT, but carpet bombing is more cost effective than a Tsar Bomba bomb.
Fusion isn't like fission, if it leaks out of the containment field then it'll just stop. Even if all the energy did get released in one go, we have detonated literally thousands of fusion bombs within our atmosphere and so far have not set the planet on fire.
The fusion reaction itself is easy to cause just in a simple desktop experiment. So, the fuel is deuterium, that is, heavy hydrogen, that is, hydrogen with an extra neutron in the nucleus. So, use deuterium instead of hydrogen to make water and get heavy water. Then have a target with some deuterium and an accelerator and shoot some deuterium at the target. Presto: A fusion reaction as described in the article.
Easy? Yes. Practical? No! The reaction rate is tiny. Likely nearly all of the deuterium shot at the target causes no reaction and, thus, has the energy used to accelerate the deuterium wasted.
To be fair running experiments like these in our only biosphere isn't exactly the sanest thing. I'd rather be doing stuff like this (and biological research) on the moon or something. There's a good short story about this somewhere I'll see if I can dig it up.
Counter-intuitive number: The net energy production in the sun's core is about the same as what a mammal produces per cubic meter. So we're already there, we just need more mammals. :-)
While fusion is indeed what powers the sun, we're trying to do something with fusion that's on a completely different scale.
The sun's energy production is 3.846x10^26 W, nearly all of which is produced in its core which has a volume of 2.207x10^25 m^3. This gives the sun's core a power density of 17.43 W/m^3.
The average human male has a basal metabolism rate of about 81.3W, with a volume of 0.0664 m^3. This gives an energy density of 1224W/m^3.
So by volume, a human produces over 70 times the energy of the sun's core.
Tokamaks have always seemed to me such a massive distraction in practical energy production, other than ancillary benefits due to the funding, upfront energies involved, and sheer scale.
Instead military complexes are quietly focussing on other nuclear research such as Polywell devices or forgoing the difficulties of fusion entirely and focussing on Generation IV fission reactor types such as Molten-Salt Reactors (MSR).
I'm willing to bet that the world's energy problems will be greatly ameliorated or even solved long before ITER ever produces more energy than it consumes. Even if it ever worked, the likelihood is that the extreme dependence on scale of any installation would make it impractical in a future we are heading to where everything is greatly distributed, including energy generation.
I'll take that bet. ITER won't just break even, it will have sustained (15min) runs where it produces 10 times as much energy as was input. This is not wishful thinking, this is the expected output of the reactor, which will be attained unless something really unexpected goes on in the reaction chamber.
It should be completed in less than 10 years, so I'm curious as to what you think will solve/ameliorate the world's energy problems in such a short timeframe.
The Sun is not doughnut-shaped. The ITER fusion machine is conceptually flawed; the drawbacks are numerous: confinement time, plasma temperature, energy consumption, tritium breed, and there on. It is a lame that mainstream scientists think they are so smarter, but are unable to understand that electrostatic fusion machines are conceptually much better, much more energy-efficient and can be developed with much less money and in less time. http://youtu.be/ro5-QYqqxzM
> Global energy demand is expected to double by 2050, while the share coming from fossil fuels – currently 85% – needs to drop dramatically if we are to reduce carbon emissions and limit global warming.
That is a highly controversial statement. But it is just dropped in there. Just dropped in.
Question: Where does that statement get its legs? That is, what forces, influences, or whatever are causing it to be just dropped in, just sprinkled on like salt on food?
To me dropping in that statement makes the BBC and the author look really silly; I can't believe that dropping in that statement helps their credibility or reputation. So, why are they just dropping in that statement?
Here's one reason: Just keep pushing that story. Everyday, every way, just push it. So, keep the story going. Get others in the media, e.g., the NYT, to do the same.
Then, for the payoff, about once a week, use some anecdotal data as an excuse to write a full story about 'global warming'. That story is really easy to write -- just pull up the framework story, fill in some blanks, and, presto, get a new story with new ad revenue. Maybe that's the answer.
Global Warming is a Theory that's of very high consensus in the scientific community. We're not talking Theory of Evolution levels of crazy acceptance, but far higher levels of acceptance than many things you act on every day.
Both are proven to a far higher level than many semiconductor models used to build chips you are probably using to make that post.
The news media however, does not report the consensus (on either of those), I am sorry they have mislead you.
Comments like yours make me wish Hacker News followed LWN's example and provided killfiles. At this point, anyone who is a climate skeptic is so detached from object reality that nothing he writes is worth reading.
Those are separate issues. Even if there is a political global warming conspiracy in the short term, we cannot just keep doubling CO2 output indefinitely with no consequences. The second issue does need to be addressed, and ITER is a one of the ways we are addressing it.
[+] [-] chubbard|13 years ago|reply
He has made significantly more progress towards the goal of net energy production from Fusion over 40 years and billions spent on Tokamak research. I think his ideas have lots of promise, but oddly enough society hasn't trained people in this type of science in decades.
Problem is Bussard passed away not long ago so progress on Polywell is slow since there are very few people out there with the technical know how to pick up where he left off. But, still he has left quite a lot of documents and details about what he has done. I hope research continues.
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/...
[+] [-] vignesh_vs_in|13 years ago|reply
What kind of logic is that?
[+] [-] alexhawdon|13 years ago|reply
So, if you live in the UK and directly (through license fee) or indirectly (through taxes) fund the BBC then you don't get access to the content they give away to the rest of the world for free? Okaaaaaay
[+] [-] __alexs|13 years ago|reply
Coral Cache to the rescue :-/
[+] [-] simba-hiiipower|13 years ago|reply
and, ok, so it's a part of BBC Worldwide which is run as a commercial property to fund standard BBC programming, but does anyone have any insights as to why allowing access to such content in the UK would prevent or hinder this goal in any way?
[+] [-] Tycho|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kator|13 years ago|reply
I'm paraphrasing but does anyone wonder what happens if the fusion leaks out of the container and lights the planet on fire?
It makes me laugh that everyone is so focused on all sorts of dooms day scenarios and the reality is most likely someone will drop a vial of something horrible accidentally in a lab somewhere and half the human population of earth will be wiped out in 30 days.
Or most we'll just keep worrying about all this stuff and most of us will be dead, gone and dust before anything really interesting happens.
[+] [-] coffeeaddicted|13 years ago|reply
Although I guess it would cause some big explosion.
[+] [-] lectrick|13 years ago|reply
Oh, and probably an impressive explosion.
But that's it.
[+] [-] Retric|13 years ago|reply
As far as wiping out people goes, it's a lot harder than you might think. I have seen estimates where a 'full scale' nuclear exchange between US and Russia would have done far less damage than most people assumed. It's hard to comprehend just how large the US is, or the fact that people have already detonated thousands of bombs which did little to increase the level of background radiation. Granted most of them where sub 10MT, but carpet bombing is more cost effective than a Tsar Bomba bomb.
[+] [-] ZoFreX|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webreac|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|13 years ago|reply
There have been literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of fusion devices exploded in the atmosphere, and we're still here.
[+] [-] johnchristopher|13 years ago|reply
I don't much about fusion 101 but I read that the exact same question was asked when humans started using fission.
Any additionnal information on the short story you mention ? I'd be interested in reading it.
[+] [-] davidmerrique|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ten_fingers|13 years ago|reply
Easy? Yes. Practical? No! The reaction rate is tiny. Likely nearly all of the deuterium shot at the target causes no reaction and, thus, has the energy used to accelerate the deuterium wasted.
New? No. This has been understood for decades.
Generate a chain reaction? Nope.
Destroy the planet? Not a chance!
[+] [-] indiecore|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kabdib|13 years ago|reply
While fusion is indeed what powers the sun, we're trying to do something with fusion that's on a completely different scale.
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] a-priori|13 years ago|reply
The sun's energy production is 3.846x10^26 W, nearly all of which is produced in its core which has a volume of 2.207x10^25 m^3. This gives the sun's core a power density of 17.43 W/m^3.
The average human male has a basal metabolism rate of about 81.3W, with a volume of 0.0664 m^3. This gives an energy density of 1224W/m^3.
So by volume, a human produces over 70 times the energy of the sun's core.
(Source: Various queries to Wolfram Alpha.)
[+] [-] drucken|13 years ago|reply
Instead military complexes are quietly focussing on other nuclear research such as Polywell devices or forgoing the difficulties of fusion entirely and focussing on Generation IV fission reactor types such as Molten-Salt Reactors (MSR).
I'm willing to bet that the world's energy problems will be greatly ameliorated or even solved long before ITER ever produces more energy than it consumes. Even if it ever worked, the likelihood is that the extreme dependence on scale of any installation would make it impractical in a future we are heading to where everything is greatly distributed, including energy generation.
[+] [-] demallien|13 years ago|reply
It should be completed in less than 10 years, so I'm curious as to what you think will solve/ameliorate the world's energy problems in such a short timeframe.
[+] [-] misterfusion|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ten_fingers|13 years ago|reply
> Global energy demand is expected to double by 2050, while the share coming from fossil fuels – currently 85% – needs to drop dramatically if we are to reduce carbon emissions and limit global warming.
That is a highly controversial statement. But it is just dropped in there. Just dropped in.
Question: Where does that statement get its legs? That is, what forces, influences, or whatever are causing it to be just dropped in, just sprinkled on like salt on food?
To me dropping in that statement makes the BBC and the author look really silly; I can't believe that dropping in that statement helps their credibility or reputation. So, why are they just dropping in that statement?
Here's one reason: Just keep pushing that story. Everyday, every way, just push it. So, keep the story going. Get others in the media, e.g., the NYT, to do the same.
Then, for the payoff, about once a week, use some anecdotal data as an excuse to write a full story about 'global warming'. That story is really easy to write -- just pull up the framework story, fill in some blanks, and, presto, get a new story with new ad revenue. Maybe that's the answer.
[+] [-] enko|13 years ago|reply
It's a pretty uncontroversial statement to me. In fact half of it seems self-evident, the other merely the overwhelming consensus.
And so maybe that's why it was dropped in. Just dropped in. Just dropped in, like a drop-bear dropping into a salt-sprinkling-party. Just dropped in!
[+] [-] gte910h|13 years ago|reply
Both are proven to a far higher level than many semiconductor models used to build chips you are probably using to make that post.
The news media however, does not report the consensus (on either of those), I am sorry they have mislead you.
[1] Source http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec...
[+] [-] quotemstr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adsr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Daniel_Newby|13 years ago|reply